Urine test for welfare?

[Skiz]

Makes sense to me...



> Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they
> pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes
> as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to
> pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I
> do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to
> people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have
> to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to
> pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no
> problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on
> the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on
> their ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how
> much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine
> test to get a public assistance check? Pass this along if you
>! ; agr ee or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it
> along, though . . Something has to change in this country --
> and soon!

[bigboab]

People just love taking the piss.:)

[Actatoi]

>
Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

No I can't imagine that. Please show me some facts about it mr.spam-email. And what if everyone had to do a urine test then. What would get better and why would it get better? Is people addicted to marijuana, cocaine or such better then someone addicted to alcohol?

[clocker]

How much more would it cost to administer the tests and would that cost be offset by the reduction of benefits paid?

[Busyman]

How much more would it cost to administer the tests and would that cost be offset by the reduction of benefits paid?

Good question but it's the principle of the whole thing loike.

I think moms on welfare should be required to be on long-term birth control (the one shot deal for those that can take it).

[clocker]

How much more would it cost to administer the tests and would that cost be offset by the reduction of benefits paid?

Good question but it's the principle of the whole thing loike.


So if it costs more of your "hard earned tax dollars" to add drug testing you won't care because the principle will be upheld?

The recent brouhaha about drugs in baseball raises some interesting points as well...they're upset because the drug use enhanced (at least potentially) performance, so should welfare mothers who take meth (and therefore speed up) be overlooked because they are potentially more productive?

[Skiz]

More productive at what? Certainly not finding a job and getting off of welfare.

Drug tests aren't even that costly these days with their use becoming so standard in so many industries. The state/county (in Texas) use them for all parolees and those put on probation, and yes, they test for alcohol as well in cases where the offense was in any way related to drugs or alcohol.

I would gladly pay a bit more per person on welfare if we could eliminate those that abuse the system, thus significantly dropping the cost of the entire program.

[AmpeD]

yes, there needs to be restrictions on how long you can collect welfare for. Once the time is up the people should be forced to do community service or something for their check. People need to do something to earn the money or they wont care at all how they spend it.

or just get rid of the whole system because its so screwed up.

[Busyman™]

Good question but it's the principle of the whole thing loike.


So if it costs more of your "hard earned tax dollars" to add drug testing you won't care because the principle will be upheld?

The recent brouhaha about drugs in baseball raises some interesting points as well...they're upset because the drug use enhanced (at least potentially) performance, so should welfare mothers who take meth (and therefore speed up) be overlooked because they are potentially more productive?

I didn't say I agreed.

One is the principle of paying someone taxpayer money that smokes it up.

I'm talking about the principle behind Skiz's post.

You are talking logistics which I get also. In that case, the taxpayer bottom line can be more adversely affected than ya just pay the crack addict with no testing.

I think you like being adversarial stuff for no reason.

If I thought your post was donkey nuts I would've called it a dumb question.:ermm:

[ilw]

Whenever you start putting qualifications on benefits, you have to ask the question, are you ok with the people who fail starving to death in your country?
Personally i accept that whatever system you use it will be flawed, but i'm willing to pay the taxes that guarantee that anyone will be cared for. Its annoying that money is being spent on wasters, but i prefer it to the alternative.

[pentomato]

yes, there needs to be restrictions on how long you can collect welfare for. Once the time is up the people should be forced to do community service or something for their check. People need to do something to earn the money or they wont care at all how they spend it.

or just get rid of the whole system because its so screwed up.

You guys must me sleeping in fron of the computers, welfare reform passed in 1993, nobody can be on welfare for more than 2 years lifetime, that's it, and when people come to the welfare rolls for those two years, they have to start a mandatory community service job, of they get cut off, that's all there is to it, Bill Clinton signed that bill into law.

[Busyman™]

Whenever you start putting qualifications on benefits, you have to ask the question, are you ok with the people who fail starving to death in your country?
Personally i accept that whatever system you use it will be flawed, but i'm willing to pay the taxes that guarantee that anyone will be cared for. Its annoying that money is being spent on wasters, but i prefer it to the alternative.

I don't.

Ironically, I give to bums on the street. However, I can't agree with a mass blanketing of those benefits for those that obviously piss it away.

I remember being on School St SW D.C. I get out of my truck and this fella asks for money for a sandwich. I asked him to follow me into the Subway and told him to get what he wanted.

He came out, sat on some steps and tore that sandwich up.

In other cases, people give the sandwich, and the bum literally throws away in front of the giver cuz he wanted money.

Fuck that.

The problem is that people (mostly liberals) don't like holding people accountable for those folks own well being.

"Sit on your ass we'll pay for it cuz we want to help you....sit on your ass."

There are always the exceptions like the handicapped, mentally handicapped, and struggling mom trying to make ends meet.

Most of the exceptions have good enough excuses in my book.

You have the man working two janitorial jobs living in a hovel then you have the man not working at all living in a slightly better hovel.

The shit makes me sick.

The alternative is that able bodied folks should work or eat shit.

There is no middle.

Just like I think the current system of gun ownership here sucks cuz it's too easy for folk to get guns, I think welfare needs even more scrutiny.

One should feel almost too proud to ask for it. It should be considered a privilege, not a preordained hand-out.

People actually flock to D.C. cuz of it's welfare system (previous non-residents).

I've said that illegal immigrants should fuck-off cuz of that word I said before immigrant. However, one thing is true. They come here working their asses off. I go into many buildings that might have a new company moving in and they are right there working.

So I look at illegals, and other's struggling by working and then look at the lazy fuck who has people with your mindset in their corner that don't give any incentive for him to work.

[cullen7282]

yes, there needs to be restrictions on how long you can collect welfare for. Once the time is up the people should be forced to do community service or something for their check. People need to do something to earn the money or they wont care at all how they spend it.

or just get rid of the whole system because its so screwed up.

Most states have some sort of restrictions in place. Not how long you can be on it, but things you must do to keep it. When I was 21, I moved with my boyfriend to a state where I knew no one. He ended up in jail and I was pregnant, all of a sudden I was by myself working at a grocery store in a small town that didn't have many jobs for $150 a week. I qualified for food stamps and medicaid.

In order to keep my food stamps, I had to attend weekly training classes. In these classes, they helped you find a job, get rides to an interview, get your liscense, learn how to make a resume, etc. Anything you had to do to help find a better paying, full time job.

Most states don't just hand out money and say, Hey don't worry about a job, we got you covered.

[j2k4]

Whenever you start putting qualifications on benefits, you have to ask the question, are you ok with the people who fail starving to death in your country?
Personally i accept that whatever system you use it will be flawed, but i'm willing to pay the taxes that guarantee that anyone will be cared for. Its annoying that money is being spent on wasters, but i prefer it to the alternative.

I don't.

Ironically, I give to bums on the street. However, I can't agree with a mass blanketing of those benefits for those that obviously piss it away.

I remember being on School St SW D.C. I get out of my truck and this fella asks for money for a sandwich. I asked him to follow me into the Subway and told him to get what he wanted.

He came out, sat on some steps and tore that sandwich up.

In other cases, people give the sandwich, and the bum literally throws away in front of the giver cuz he wanted money.

Fuck that.

The problem is that people (mostly liberals) don't like holding people accountable for those folks own well being.

"Sit on your ass we'll pay for it cuz we want to help you....sit on your ass."

There are always the exceptions like the handicapped, mentally handicapped, and struggling mom trying to make ends meet.

Most of the exceptions have good enough excuses in my book.

You have the man working two janitorial jobs living in a hovel then you have the man not working at all living in a slightly better hovel.

The shit makes me sick.

The alternative is that able bodied folks should work or eat shit.

There is no middle.

Just like I think the current system of gun ownership here sucks cuz it's too easy for folk to get guns, I think welfare needs even more scrutiny.

One should feel almost too proud to ask for it. It should be considered a privilege, not a preordained hand-out.

People actually flock to D.C. cuz of it's welfare system (previous non-residents).

I've said that illegal immigrants should fuck-off cuz of that word I said before immigrant. However, one thing is true. They come here working their asses off. I go into many buildings that might have a new company moving in and they are right there working.

So I look at illegals, and other's struggling by working and then look at the lazy fuck who has people with your mindset in their corner that don't give any incentive for him to work.

Typically simplistic conservative mindset...you people make me si.............never mind. :whistling

[AmpeD]

yes, there needs to be restrictions on how long you can collect welfare for. Once the time is up the people should be forced to do community service or something for their check. People need to do something to earn the money or they wont care at all how they spend it.

or just get rid of the whole system because its so screwed up.

You guys must me sleeping in fron of the computers, welfare reform passed in 1993, nobody can be on welfare for more than 2 years lifetime, that's it, and when people come to the welfare rolls for those two years, they have to start a mandatory community service job, of they get cut off, that's all there is to it, Bill Clinton signed that bill into law.
O noes I think like the democrats:O

[xxtonic]

I don't.

Ironically, I give to bums on the street. However, I can't agree with a mass blanketing of those benefits for those that obviously piss it away.

I remember being on School St SW D.C. I get out of my truck and this fella asks for money for a sandwich. I asked him to follow me into the Subway and told him to get what he wanted.

He came out, sat on some steps and tore that sandwich up.

In other cases, people give the sandwich, and the bum literally throws away in front of the giver cuz he wanted money.

Fuck that.

The problem is that people (mostly liberals) don't like holding people accountable for those folks own well being.

"Sit on your ass we'll pay for it cuz we want to help you....sit on your ass."

There are always the exceptions like the handicapped, mentally handicapped, and struggling mom trying to make ends meet.

Most of the exceptions have good enough excuses in my book.

You have the man working two janitorial jobs living in a hovel then you have the man not working at all living in a slightly better hovel.

The shit makes me sick.

The alternative is that able bodied folks should work or eat shit.

There is no middle.

Just like I think the current system of gun ownership here sucks cuz it's too easy for folk to get guns, I think welfare needs even more scrutiny.

One should feel almost too proud to ask for it. It should be considered a privilege, not a preordained hand-out.

People actually flock to D.C. cuz of it's welfare system (previous non-residents).

I've said that illegal immigrants should fuck-off cuz of that word I said before immigrant. However, one thing is true. They come here working their asses off. I go into many buildings that might have a new company moving in and they are right there working.

So I look at illegals, and other's struggling by working and then look at the lazy fuck who has people with your mindset in their corner that don't give any incentive for him to work.

Typically simplistic conservative mindset...you people make me si.............never mind. :whistling

Typically simplistic liberal mindset...you people are reta.............never mind. :whistling

[j2k4]

Typically simplistic conservative mindset...you people make me si.............never mind. :whistling

Typically simplistic liberal mindset...you people are reta.............never mind. :whistling

Eh? :whistling

[bigboab]

Typically simplistic liberal mindset...you people are reta.............never mind. :whistling

Eh? :whistling

Test everybody, I say.:whistling

[Something Else]

Well it's not like it's hard to get hold of 'clean' pish. So why not. :smilie4:

[ilw]

...edited...

I can't agree with a mass blanketing of those benefits for those that obviously piss it away.

The problem is that people (mostly liberals) don't like holding people accountable for those folks own well being.

There are always the exceptions like the handicapped, mentally handicapped, and struggling mom trying to make ends meet.
Most of the exceptions have good enough excuses in my book.

One should feel almost too proud to ask for it. It should be considered a privilege, not a preordained hand-out.

So I look at illegals, and other's struggling by working and then look at the lazy fuck who has people with your mindset in their corner that don't give any incentive for him to work.

I agree in some ways:
a person working should never be worse off than someone on benefits
It should be set up to encourage people to only make it a temporary thing, except for those who have 'a good reason' (as you defined above) to stay on.
It shouldn't be a socially acceptable thing to be on benefits without a reason (i.e. pride/shame & cultural disapproval should play a role)

But we differ in the duration that someone should be supported for...

How do you feel about benefits for people with children? Is it no different (child suffers for parents errors), or do you pay benefits (unemployed people just have to have children...) or do you take the kids away (again kid suffers and potentially costs more)?

[Busyman™]

...edited...

I can't agree with a mass blanketing of those benefits for those that obviously piss it away.

The problem is that people (mostly liberals) don't like holding people accountable for those folks own well being.

There are always the exceptions like the handicapped, mentally handicapped, and struggling mom trying to make ends meet.
Most of the exceptions have good enough excuses in my book.

One should feel almost too proud to ask for it. It should be considered a privilege, not a preordained hand-out.

So I look at illegals, and other's struggling by working and then look at the lazy fuck who has people with your mindset in their corner that don't give any incentive for him to work.

I agree in some ways:
a person working should never be worse off than someone on benefits
It should be set up to encourage people to only make it a temporary thing, except for those who have 'a good reason' (as you defined above) to stay on.
It shouldn't be a socially acceptable thing to be on benefits without a reason (i.e. pride/shame & cultural disapproval should play a role)

But we differ in the duration that someone should be supported for...

How do you feel about benefits for people with children? Is it no different (child suffers for parents errors), or do you pay benefits (unemployed people just have to have children...) or do you take the kids away (again kid suffers and potentially costs more)?

Unfortunately a mother with a kid can keep churning them out and the state will pay.

This is why i said mothers on welfare should be on the birth control shot if medically able to take it.

People cringe sometimes thinking that that's taking away reproductive rights.

I say no cuz the state has to pay for that reproduction.

The funny thing is this would mainly hit abusers of the system.

I knew many moms with 1 kid and already on welfare go to 2 to 3 more kids....while still on welfare.

That's a lot of fooking money and health care the state has to put out.

In that case clocker's questions about which would cost more is quite obvious.

Birth control shot vs. extra welfare money and health care for a child.

That's a no-brainer.

I say the birth control shot because it doesn't have to be constantly managed per mother. There's won't be any forgetting to take a pill or anything.

[clocker]

In that case clocker's questions about which would cost more is quite obvious.

Birth control shot vs. extra welfare money and health care for a child.

Since you've completely changed the subject we were discussing, my question becomes irrelevant.

[Busyman]

In that case clocker's questions about which would cost more is quite obvious.

Birth control shot vs. extra welfare money and health care for a child.

Since you've completely changed the subject we were discussing, my question becomes irrelevant.

It's a one-post segway so if you want to remain irrelevant, fine by me.

[clocker]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v78/clocker/segway.jpg

[Busyman]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v78/clocker/segway.jpg

Good one, clocker.:lol:

[clocker]

Thank you and Merry Christmas.

Now, back on point...

You seem quite worked up about presumed abuse of the welfare system, both drugs and out of control reproduction.

Although I have no doubt that there are some high profile examples of both, have you any data to support the idea that abuse is so widespread that draconian measures like mandatory urine tests and enforced birth control are necessary?

If so, I'd like to see it.

[Busyman™]

Thank you and Merry Christmas.

Now, back on point...

You seem quite worked up about presumed abuse of the welfare system, both drugs and out of control reproduction.

Although I have no doubt that there are some high profile examples of both, have you any data to support the idea that abuse is so widespread that draconian measures like mandatory urine tests and enforced birth control are necessary?

If so, I'd like to see it.

No and not needed. I've seen it firsthand....a lot of it.

I've probably seen more of it than lets say, someone that lives in East Jablip west of Bubblefuck, because I work and live in a major metropolitan area.:idunno:

[ilw]

what about families who already have kids? Do you still cut off the benefits after a set period?

[clocker]

Thank you and Merry Christmas.

Now, back on point...

You seem quite worked up about presumed abuse of the welfare system, both drugs and out of control reproduction.

Although I have no doubt that there are some high profile examples of both, have you any data to support the idea that abuse is so widespread that draconian measures like mandatory urine tests and enforced birth control are necessary?

If so, I'd like to see it.

No and not needed. I've seen it firsthand....a lot of it.

I've probably seen more of it than lets say, someone that lives in East Jablip west of Bubblefuck, because I work and live in a major metropolitan area.:idunno:
Actually yes, it is needed.
Despite your experience in the big, bad city (a city I spent about 15 years in, BTW), the number of abuses you can personally quantify amounts to a statistical blip (and that's being generous).

Furthermore, your personal experience only covers one city and a smaller one at that.

So, even if every single welfare recipient in your personal circle purchases drugs with benefit money and procreates like the proverbial bunny, that don't mean squat.
That's exactly like Bush saying the economy is doing great because everyone he knows is prospering.

[Busyman™]

No and not needed. I've seen it firsthand....a lot of it.

I've probably seen more of it than lets say, someone that lives in East Jablip west of Bubblefuck, because I work and live in a major metropolitan area.:idunno:
Actually yes, it is needed.
Despite your experience in the big, bad city (a city I spent about 15 years in, BTW), the number of abuses you can personally quantify amounts to a statistical blip (and that's being generous).

Furthermore, your personal experience only covers one city and a smaller one at that.

So, even if every single welfare recipient in your personal circle purchases drugs with benefit money and procreates like the proverbial bunny, that don't mean squat.
That's exactly like Bush saying the economy is doing great because everyone he knows is prospering.

Uh yeah it does mean squat. Abuse is abuse.

If you lived in this city for 15 years...what city was I talking about? What city do I live in?

I said major metropolitan area....not big, bad city (whatever that means:ermm:). Furthermore, I see the same up the road in another other metro area.

Now sure it's two metro areas I have the most knowledge and that's multiple cities that are included.

However, you haven't said what makes this measure Draconian or why my little cubby hole of America doesn't matter.

You just attack the measure cuz it's different.

[clocker]

For some reason I was under the impression you lived in D.C.
Certainly could be wrong.

Ultimately irrelevant though.
Your personal experience in whatever two major metropolitan areas is still not statistically significant.
After all, you're talking about imposing these restrictions on millions of people spread over the entire country and no matter how gregarious you are, you don't know that many people, much less that many abusers.

So, got anything besides your personal experience to go on?

[Busyman™]

For some reason I was under the impression you lived in D.C.
Certainly could be wrong.

Ultimately irrelevant though.
Your personal experience in whatever two major metropolitan areas is still not statistically significant.
After all, you're talking about imposing these restrictions on millions of people spread over the entire country and no matter how gregarious you are, you don't know that many people, much less that many abusers.

So, got anything besides your personal experience to go on?

No, just the inkling that if it's abused here it's abused elsewhere.:smilie4:

FYI - the Washington Metropolitan area (I did say I live in the metro area) has more than one city in it.

Btw, what do I want to restrict? How does my measure harm the average welfare recipient?

[Busyman™]

what about families who already have kids? Do you still cut off the benefits after a set period?

I missed your post.

No.

First off, I said nothing about whether a woman has kids already or not. That's irrelevant.

Second off, I said nothing about cutting off benefits after a set period. You said "still" as if that was one of my points.

The funny thing is this stuff could be easily circumvented. A woman could apply for welfare and already be pregnant....on purpose.

This is just one way of trying to close the holes without stepping on folks rights.

If you apply for state money, the state should have the right to say, "Hey don't have kids right now while you should be trying to get on you feet."

[clocker]

FYI - the Washington Metropolitan area (I did say I live in the metro area) has more than one city in it.
Did I mention I lived there for 15 years?
Tell me something I don't know.

Btw, what do I want to restrict? How does my measure harm the average welfare recipient?
I keep asking- and you keep ignoring the request- for any proof whatsoever that the measures you want to impose would save more money than they would cost to implement.

Since you live in the very heart of the Federal government, you are certainly aware of the tendency of bureaucracy to multiply and entrench regardless of merit or utility, yet you seem willing to feed the waste based on your personal experience.

C'mon Busy, quit telling me that I'm only arguing to be contrary and prove me wrong.

[Busyman™]

FYI - the Washington Metropolitan area (I did say I live in the metro area) has more than one city in it.
Did I mention I lived there for 15 years?
Tell me something I don't know.

Well...I did say the metro area and you assumed I meant city.

Either it's reading comprehension or something else.:idunno:

Btw, what do I want to restrict? How does my measure harm the average welfare recipient?
I keep asking- and you keep ignoring the request- for any proof whatsoever that the measures you want to impose would save more money than they would cost to implement.

Since you live in the very heart of the Federal government, you are certainly aware of the tendency of bureaucracy to multiply and entrench regardless of merit or utility, yet you seem willing to feed the waste based on your personal experience.

C'mon Busy, quit telling me that I'm only arguing to be contrary and prove me wrong.

I ignored nothing. I told you I only have personal experience.

Why is it you say I ignored it when you acknowledged it was personal experience. Wtf?

Adversarial just for adversarial's sake?:no:

I think the shot is a no-brainer since the cost of the shot vs. healthcare and extra payments for a newborn would outweigh....the shot.

Mind you, this could go on a state-by-state basis which makes the blanket assignment of such a measure moot.

[bigboab]

If the people who are in work in well paid jobs paid all the taxes that they should, then, maybe, they would be entitled to criticize the unemployed.

I once had a discussion about this with a schoolteacher. We(The shop steward and I:)) calculated what taxes she was claiming back for(She used an accountant to help her);

Having children at university,
housing grants,
Private pension(now there is/was a big claw back),
the list goes on.

It turned out that she was claiming back twice what an unemployed family of 4 had to live on.

This was a wee while ago. Don't know if it has changed. I doubt it, because these are the people the laws are made for.:(

[clocker]

I think the shot is a no-brainer since the cost of the shot vs. healthcare and extra payments for a newborn would outweigh....the shot.

Presumably this "shot" is also a requirement for males on welfare as well?

[Busyman™]

I think the shot is a no-brainer since the cost of the shot vs. healthcare and extra payments for a newborn would outweigh....the shot.

Presumably this "shot" is also a requirement for males on welfare as well?

Yeah I thought of that. I don't know if that's readily available and if so, how long it's been in use to be considered safe.

[clocker]

Certainly can't insist on one without the other.

Goose/gander, etc.

[Busyman™]

Certainly can't insist on one without the other.

Goose/gander, etc.

Sure you can. See post 38.

[clocker]

Certainly can't insist on one without the other.

Goose/gander, etc.

Sure you can. See post 38.
No, I can't.

Post #38 is not a proof of concept, it's an admission that you've failed to think this through.
So far in this entire exchange I've only asked two very basic questions- "How does the cost/benefit ratio of drug testing work?" and "Will mandatory birth control be applied equally to both sexes?"- and you've dismissed both as "adversarial".

For all you know, I agree with you and am only curious about the practical implementation.

[JunkBarMan]

"How does the cost/benefit ratio of drug testing work?"
The first logical conclusion to this would be that people on welfare wouldn't be on drugs, there fore companies hiring these people wouldn't need to waste money on drugs tests. One possible cost benefit.





"Will mandatory birth control be applied equally to both sexes?"

Is this even possible with the medicine available today?

Seems to me that both sexes hold the same responsibility when it comes to the child whether they like it or not, so, the control falls on both parties involved.

Birth control should be applied equally to both sexes, regardless of cost?

[Busyman™]

Sure you can. See post 38.
No, I can't.

Post #38 is not a proof of concept, it's an admission that you've failed to think this through.
So far in this entire exchange I've only asked two very basic questions- "How does the cost/benefit ratio of drug testing work?" and "Will mandatory birth control be applied equally to both sexes?"- and you've dismissed both as "adversarial".

For all you know, I agree with you and am only curious about the practical implementation.

What I know is that I've answered your questions and you can't accept them.

You also have a history problem. I have never dismissed both questions as being adversarial. I said you are being adversarial.

Hell you just asked the last question (with different wording) and I answered in post 38 (sighhh) so show me where the hell did I dismiss it?

You haven't answered any questions that I've posed but that's cool. I'm not surprised.

I tell you that I am speaking from personal experience and tell you if I don't know if something is safe and you call it dismissive. Fanfriggingtastic.:lol:

Hell you are starting to be downright nutty and I'm surprised, clocker.:ermm:

I'm glad we had this exchange since it gives me a little more insight into you outside of hardware.

[Everose]

I would worry if mandatory 'one shot' birth controls were issued, we, as taxpayers, would be paying for it big time in the long haul since the side effects of these drugs have only started to be documented.

Did you know they are actually starting to test sewage in some areas to see what drug use is prevalent in the area?

[Busyman™]

I would worry if mandatory 'one shot' birth controls were issued, we, as taxpayers, would be paying for it big time in the long haul since the side effects of these drugs have only started to be documented.

With the amount of abuse I've seen, taxpayers would probably be ahead.:ermm:

[clocker]

Presumably this "shot" is also a requirement for males on welfare as well?

Yeah I thought of that. I don't know if that's readily available and if so, how long it's been in use to be considered safe.
This post#38 to which you keep referring me and gosh, I don't see a "yes" or "no" here.

Now that you've had even longer to "think about" it, is mandatory birth control applicable to both sexes?

You haven't answered any questions that I've posed but that's cool. I'm not surprised.
I can't find any questions that you've asked.
Where might they be?

I tell you that I am speaking from personal experience and tell you if I don't know if something is safe and you call it dismissive. Fanfriggingtastic.
Indeed.
Is every welfare recipient in your personal experience abusing the system then?
Half of 'em?
About how many?
How is it that you come into contact with all these people- from posts in the lounge about vacations and home theatres, you seem to be quite comfortably middle class.


The first logical conclusion to this would be that people on welfare wouldn't be on drugs, there fore companies hiring these people wouldn't need to waste money on drugs tests. One possible cost benefit.
A benefit to businesses, yes.
So you think it's a good idea for the public to pick up the tab for drug testing so that corporations don't have to.
Rather odd don't you think, given that the original complaint was that too much public money (in the form of taxes) was being squandered on freeloaders who spent their benefits on drugs?

Look guys, my point the entire time has been this...

I have no doubt that abuses occur.
Certainly, some people do buy drugs with benefit money.
Some women do get pregnant and feed off the trough irresponsibly.
The question is, are the costs of implementing mandatory drug testing and birth control lesser or greater than the amount being siphoned off by abusers?

Once you provide an answer to that relatively easy and neutral question we can move into the real minefield.

Busy, since you live in the DC area we'll use that as our test locus.
The population of DC is overwhelmingly black, therefore it's safe to assume that the majority of welfare recipients are also black.
Gee, I wonder how mandatory drug testing and enforced sterilization of a black subgroup by the Federal government is going to go over.
Care to venture a guess?

[Busyman™]

Yeah I thought of that. I don't know if that's readily available and if so, how long it's been in use to be considered safe.
This post#38 to which you keep referring me and gosh, I don't see a "yes" or "no" here.

Now that you've had even longer to "think about" it, is mandatory birth control applicable to both sexes?

Oh wow, you needed a yes or no from that post?

NO! DUE TO WHAT I SAID IN POST #38.:1eye:


You haven't answered any questions that I've posed but that's cool. I'm not surprised.

I can't find any questions that you've asked.
Where might they be?


Why should I bother? There is obviously some type of reading comprehension problem going on. There are questions there though....with question marks and everything and even.:1eye:


I tell you that I am speaking from personal experience and tell you if I don't know if something is safe and you call it dismissive. Fanfriggingtastic.
Indeed.
Is every welfare recipient in your personal experience abusing the system then?
Half of 'em?
About how many?
How is it that you come into contact with all these people- from posts in the lounge about vacations and home theatres, you seem to be quite comfortably middle class.

What does that have to do with who I come in contact with? Wow you are truly ignorant of folks on this area.

I also wasn't always where I am today (although I've never been on welfare).

Look guys, my point the entire time has been this...

I have no doubt that abuses occur.
Certainly, some people do buy drugs with benefit money.
Some women do get pregnant and feed off the trough irresponsibly.
The question is, are the costs of implementing mandatory drug testing and birth control lesser or greater than the amount being siphoned off by abusers?

Once you provide an answer to that relatively easy and neutral question we can move into the real minefield.

Cool beans. I never disputed that there would need to be a study of cost/benefit analysis before deciding on implementation but you seem intent erasing the thought of such a measure.

Busy, since you live in the DC area we'll use that as our test locus.
The population of DC is overwhelmingly black, therefore it's safe to assume that the majority of welfare recipients are also black.
Gee, I wonder how mandatory drug testing and enforced sterilization of a black subgroup by the Federal government is going to go over.
Care to venture a guess?

I don't care. Abuse is abuse. I look at it objectively.

I'm sure there was a cost in changing from food stamps to Independence Cards but that's done.

I look at what shouldn't happen.

Women having babies while on assistance is counter-productive to them getting off assistance in the first place.

Taxpayers already pay for the assistance. A newborn furthers taxpayer burden with less productivity from the woman (less working) and increased health care costs for the her and the newborn.

Hell, without looking at women that do it on purpose, we could go further and look at numbers of women that simply get pregnant while on assistance.

I'm sure that record is somewhere (I haven't the slightest idea where).

That number would make the abuse question moot since in either case, taxpayers foot the bill and it lessens the likelihood of the mother getting off assistance any sooner.

[clocker]

NO! DUE TO WHAT I SAID IN POST #38.:1eye:
Finally.




What does that have to do with who I come in contact with? Wow you are truly ignorant of folks on this area.


You're the one who's basing his opinion on "personal experience" so why is it unreasonable to ask what that experience is?



Cool beans. I never disputed that there would need to be a study of cost/benefit analysis before deciding on implementation but you seem intent erasing the thought of such a measure.
What if the study were to show that it would cost more to drug test everybody than it costs to let a few abusers slide?
If "abuse is abuse" aren't you compelled to proceed anyway?

And where are all these welfare mothers who are getting pregnant obtaining the sperm?
Welfare fathers perhaps?
But wait, you're going to give them a pass (see the controversial post#38...) so the entire onus for this alleged abuse of the system falls on just half of the guilty parties.
Not too sexist, nosiree.

BTW, just FYI


Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families

Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family

The belief that single women are promiscuous and have large families to receive increased benefits has no basis in extant research, and single-parent families are not only a phenomenon of the poor (McFate, 1995). In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). In 1994, 43 percent of welfare families consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children. Thus, the average welfare family is no larger than the average nonrecipient's family, and despite considerable public concern that welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births, a growing body of empirical evidence indicates that welfare benefits are not a significant incentive for childbearing (Wilcox, Robbennolt, O'Keeffe, & Pynchon, 1997).

Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance

Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line

The belief that welfare provides a disincentive to work by providing a well-paying "free ride" that enables recipients, stereotyped as "Cadillac queens," to purchase extravagant items with their benefits is another myth. In reality, recipients live considerably below the poverty threshold. Despite increased program spending, the average monthly family benefit, measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in 1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47 percent drop. In 26 states, AFDC benefits alone fell 64 percent short of the 1996 poverty guidelines, and the addition of food stamps only reduced this gap to 35 percent (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996).

Despite the ready availability of facts, myths about welfare continue to be widespread. The media contributes to this lack of information. The media helps shape public perceptions about welfare recipients. The way in which a topic is reported can turn a neutral reader into an opinionated reader and can greatly influence public opinion. Although in an analysis of articles published in 10 major newspapers from January 1997 to April 1997, the tone was generally sympathetic to the poor, actual research and facts to counter myths were generally lacking (Wyche & Mattern, 1997).
Source (http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html)

[Busyman]

Finally.

Finally on something so obvious (and on the previous page). I can't help that you can't comprehend.:idunno:


What does that have to do with who I come in contact with? Wow you are truly ignorant of folks on this area.


You're the one who's basing his opinion on "personal experience" so why is it unreasonable to ask what that experience is?

Captainobviously, it's folks that I've come into contact with. That's what personal experience means.:1eye:


Cool beans. I never disputed that there would need to be a study of cost/benefit analysis before deciding on implementation but you seem intent erasing the thought of such a measure.
What if the study were to show that it would cost more to drug test everybody than it costs to let a few abusers slide?
If "abuse is abuse" aren't you compelled to proceed anyway?

It depends on how much more it'll cost. I reckon drug testing would probably be more but birth control wouldn't.

And where are all these welfare mothers who are getting pregnant obtaining the sperm?
Welfare fathers perhaps?
But wait, you're going to give them a pass (see the controversial post#38...) so the entire onus for this alleged abuse of the system falls on just half of the guilty parties.
Not too sexist, nosiree.

Lets do this then. Forget calling it abuse. The mother is the one that carries the baby. The child of the mother is the one that will draw taxpayer healthcare. The mother is the one that would be out of work. The mother, once going back to work, will need daycare for the child.

Whether she gets pregnant on purpose or not is now irrelevant. Pops would not be hobbled by pregnancy. Lastly, there is no viable way for pops to be on birth control that he cannot "deactivate" or forget to take.

Not sexist, nosiree.

BTW, just FYI


Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families

Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family

The belief that single women are promiscuous and have large families to receive increased benefits has no basis in extant research, and single-parent families are not only a phenomenon of the poor (McFate, 1995). In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). In 1994, 43 percent of welfare families consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children. Thus, the average welfare family is no larger than the average nonrecipient's family, and despite considerable public concern that welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births, a growing body of empirical evidence indicates that welfare benefits are not a significant incentive for childbearing (Wilcox, Robbennolt, O'Keeffe, & Pynchon, 1997).

Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance

Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line

The belief that welfare provides a disincentive to work by providing a well-paying "free ride" that enables recipients, stereotyped as "Cadillac queens," to purchase extravagant items with their benefits is another myth. In reality, recipients live considerably below the poverty threshold. Despite increased program spending, the average monthly family benefit, measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in 1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47 percent drop. In 26 states, AFDC benefits alone fell 64 percent short of the 1996 poverty guidelines, and the addition of food stamps only reduced this gap to 35 percent (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996).

Despite the ready availability of facts, myths about welfare continue to be widespread. The media contributes to this lack of information. The media helps shape public perceptions about welfare recipients. The way in which a topic is reported can turn a neutral reader into an opinionated reader and can greatly influence public opinion. Although in an analysis of articles published in 10 major newspapers from January 1997 to April 1997, the tone was generally sympathetic to the poor, actual research and facts to counter myths were generally lacking (Wyche & Mattern, 1997).
Source (http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html)

Soooo? :unsure: So women on welfare get pregnant just like any women then.

Janeyus!

My measure is to further eliminate unnecessary taxpayer burden without harm to the welfare recipient.

[clocker]

What about the concerns raised by Rose (post #44)?

What do you plan on doing with those who fail your drug test...obviously they no longer qualify for benefits, so do you put them in a drug treatment facility?
Funded by whom?

What happens to the unfortunate spawn of the fertile welfare mother?
Doesn't denying benefits to this kid just reinforce the cycle of poverty and end up creating another future dependent/abuser?



Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).
Busy, you seem willing to risk an awful lot to save a very little.

[Busyman™]

What about the concerns raised by Rose (post #44)?

What do you plan on doing with those who fail your drug test...obviously they no longer qualify for benefits, so do you put them in a drug treatment facility?
Funded by whom?

That already goes on and is funded by taxpayers.

What happens to the unfortunate spawn of the fertile welfare mother?
Doesn't denying benefits to this kid just reinforce the cycle of poverty and end up creating another future dependent/abuser?

Benefits wouldn't be denied. The point of the shot is to reduce the likelihood of her getting pregnant while on benefits. end. stop.

Nothing more.



Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients

Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget

Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).
Busy, you seem willing to risk an awful lot to save a very little.

Small risk from where I'm standing. It may even increase productivity and even.

[JunkBarMan]

Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993).


That Statement is the BIGGEST load of Shyt I've ever heard. Since when is it considered "welfare" when the government TAKES less of my money or actually GIVES some back??? So, when the government takes your money and then returns some to you that should be filed under "welfare"?

All my grandfathers life he PAID INTO Social Security AND Medicare and when he retired he recieved the benefits of that HARD WORK, not welfare. The basic premise of those programs were for years of hardwork to retire into, not to benefit abusers and the like.

A capital gains tax is when you take something, i.e. a home, buy it and then turn around and sell in a certain amount of time. Less then a year it's a certain tax bracket ( higher) and there after it's a lesser tax bracket (15% or the sale price). So if by limiting the amount of money the government can take from you is "welfare" then I must be in idiot.

All of those things listed no way, shape, or form fall under this definition:

wel·fare (wlfâr)
n.

a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
b. Corporate welfare.
Idiom:
on welfare
Receiving regular assistance(money) from the government or private agencies because of need.


Translation:

Getting something for nothing.
bullshyt .

How is anything that you are PAYING for OR HAVE PAID FOR translate into getting aid????

[Busyman™]

Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993).


That Statement is the BIGGEST load of Shyt I've ever heard. Since when is it considered "welfare" when the government TAKES less of my money or actually GIVES some back??? So, when the government takes your money and then returns some to you that should be filed under "welfare"?

All my grandfathers life he PAID INTO Social Security AND Medicare and when he retired he received the benefits of that HARD WORK, not welfare. The basic premise of those programs were for years of hardwork to retire into, not to benefit abusers and the like.

A capital gains tax is when you take something, i.e. a home, buy it and then turn around and sell in a certain amount of time. Less then a year it's a certain tax bracket ( higher) and there after it's a lesser tax bracket (15% or the sale price). So if by limiting the amount of money the government can take from you is "welfare" then I must be in idiot.

All of those things listed no way, shape, or form fall under this definition:

wel·fare (wlfâr)
n.

a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
b. Corporate welfare.
Idiom:
on welfare
Receiving regular assistance(money) from the government or private agencies because of need.


Translation:

Getting something for nothing.
bullshyt .

How is anything that you are PAYING for OR HAVE PAID FOR translate into getting aid????

I agree with your post for the most part. However, some things are considered "assistance".

Social security is not especially if you are middle class since you paid into it.

Subsidies are a form of assistance though. So is Medicare.

That quote is rather biased. The difference is that the middle and upper-class pay into the government pot and the lower class mainly doesn't.

[Skiz]

Although I have no doubt that there are some high profile examples of both, have you any data to support the idea that abuse is so widespread that draconian measures like mandatory urine tests and enforced birth control are necessary?

If so, I'd like to see it.

Here's a bit...

"The UCOWF Child Care Fraud Survey:
The cost of providing child care is significant, to say the least, (Virginia’s Child Care Program budget for FY 2003 is $115,000,000), and the potential for fraud is high. From my own experience as a welfare fraud prosecutor, I can assure you that a case of child care fraud can result in a substantial loss of taxpayer monies in a very short period of time. The extent of the problem nationwide, while recognized generally, is still being evaluated, but many states have not kept statistics. The United Council on Welfare Fraud, in an effort to reach a better understanding of the extent, nature and impact of child care fraud across the nation, conducted a survey in 2002.

A questionnaire was sent to the state fraud directors of each of the states and the District of Columbia seeking information on whether, in their view, child care fraud was a state problem, the types of child care fraud experienced in the state, if statistics were kept, prosecution was pursued, recoveries made and penalties imposed in cases of child care fraud. Forty-two states responded. The document containing the full list of questions, eleven in all, and the responses is too large to include with my written testimony, however it may be viewed on the organization’s website, ucowf.org.

Forty of the 42 state fraud directors polled were of the opinion that child care fraud posed a problem in their states and of the two answering in the negative, one still provided examples of the types of child care fraud that has occurred within its boundaries.

Eighteen states had not been keeping statistics on child care fraud, but of them, several responded that the local county agencies administering the services did maintained fraud databases. In those states that did maintain detailed statistics, fraud was discovered in upwards of 69 percent of the investigations conducted with total annual discovered fraud amounts ranging from $10,000 to over $1 million.

All but three states referred fraud cases for criminal prosecution, with 17 having specific state laws regarding child care assistance fraud. Twenty-three relied on other state statutes to address criminal activity. Thirty-three states pursued administrative recovery of overpayments of child care assistance to recipients, although some could only collect through voluntary repayments, and four were capable of recovering from providers through a reduction in subsequent payments.

Eighteen states administratively penalized program-violating recipients by disqualification or other sanctions; seven undertook disqualification or de-licensing action against violating providers; one state penalized only providers but not recipients and the remainder had no penalty provisions or relied on criminal or civil restitution procedures.

An analysis of the results of this survey leads me to the conclusion that there is little uniformity in the manner in which child care fraud is addressed by the states, apart from the utilization of the criminal system. Where TANF mandates disqualification of program violators, there is no such provision in the area of child care assistance, particularly with respect to violating providers. A non-licensed, or informal, child care provider convicted of receiving fraudulent child care monies, in many states, is still eligible to provide child care services and receive government payments without regard to his or her previous fraud.

The types of fraud observed in the states were evenly divided between recipient (client) fraud and provider fraud, recognizing instances where there was collusion between both parties to defraud the system.

Types of Child Care Assistance Fraud and Various States’ experiences:
Child Care Assistance fraud can be committed by both recipients and providers individually or in collusion with each other.

A recipient may understate income to the household, rendering the household eligible for services. This can be done by underreporting the amount of hours worked or wages earned by the client, failing to report the presence of a responsible wage earner in the household, falsely claiming residence in the county or falsely claiming a child care expense when none exists. Failing to report a loss of employment or claiming non-existent employment, rendering a client ineligible for child care services also constitutes a fraud on the system.

In one recent Colorado case a client forged her pay stubs reducing the claimed amount of income to her household. As a result she received over $12,000 in child care assistance over 14 months to which she was not entitled.

Two Virginia women failed to report that their husbands were employed and residing in their homes resulting in losses of $16, 482.00 and $15, 962.00, respectively.

A Minnesota woman falsely reported living alone when her able-bodied husband was, in fact, in the household and collected more than $91,000 in child care assistance over four years.

In another Colorado case, a client claimed residence in one county while residing in another. A recovery of $33,553.00 was established for a two year period.

A Rochester, New York woman, whom I prosecuted, claimed that her brother was caring for her 11 children. Payments were sent in her brother’s name to her mother’s address. The brother, in fact, had been incarcerated for over 10 years on a rape conviction and her husband was, in fact residing in the household and caring for the children. The loss amount was limited to $77,000 because agency records failed to cover the entire period of the fraud. The illegally obtained money made the client ineligible for the food stamps the family received and the Section 8 housing in which they resided.

Another Rochester woman stole an acquaintance’s social security card, established a vendor account using the acquaintance’s social security number and her own mother’s address. Twenty-seven thousand dollars in child care payments were sent to her mother who signed the checks and gave them to the recipient over a two year period. Free care for five children was provided by the client’s mother and her 85 year old grandmother.

In Wyoming, two sisters claimed a third was providing day care for their children when, in fact, the third sister was fully employed and they were not. This resulted in a loss of $6,700 over a period of 14 months.

Similarly, two Virginia clients, employed by the same company, claimed each provided services for the other when, in fact, they worked the same hours. A claim of $36,474.00was established.

Another Virginia woman failed to report that she had lost her job on three separate occasions, yet continued to send her children to child care each time. The overpayments totaled nearly $4000.

Providers can commit fraud by claiming children who aren’t being watched, by misrepresenting the number of hours that services were provided or by charging more to care for government funded children than private pay children. They also engage in collusion with recipients and split payments to which they are not entitled.

A Wyoming provider got $41,600 over 1 ½ years claiming services for children who were not there and padding the hours for those that were there.

A Colorado provider billed $6,685 for children who had not been in his care for 4 months.

Another Wyoming provider filed claims for children who were not in attendance at a rate higher than that charged to non-child care assistance covered children; a claim was established for $112,800.for a three year period of fraud.

A Minnesota couple is under investigation for taking kickbacks from a child care center that billed the system for over $41,000 from November 2001 through December 2002 under the pretense of caring for the couple’s five children.

A California client sent her children to a free child care center and claimed that the services were provided by a family member. The two split $15,900 in illegal child care payments.

Cheats can take both forms. In a particularly egregious case, a Minnesota woman applied for child care assistance, claiming to support four children on an income of $3,100 a month. In another county, however, she operated an in-home day care center and was paid $854,000 over six years. She pleaded guilty to receiving more than $134,000 in fraudulently received child care reimbursements.

Recommendations:
The above is but a smattering of "horror stories" I have compiled from around the nation; I have omitted dozens more. They add up to a tremendous loss of taxpayer monies set aside for legitimate child care purposes and point out the need for adequate checks and balances in the system.

The United Council on Welfare Fraud recommends that, due to the substantial increase in child care funding made available to the state and the growing number of instances of fraud in the Child Care Assistance, Congress should demonstrate its commitment to Child Care program integrity by requiring all states to prepare a child care fraud control plan which, while allowing flexibility to address state-specific needs, requires, at a minimum:

* Procedures for recovery of child care overpayments.
* Federal tax intercepts for child care overpayments.
* Disqualification penalties for child care recipients and providers who have committed an intentional program violation.

These penalties would be modeled after and be similar to those formerly in place in the AFDC program (45 CFR 235.112) and currently in place in the Food Stamp program (7 CFR 273.16 [b]).
# Establishment of an incentive to promote anti-child care fraud activities by crediting child care fraud overpayment recoveries to the fraud funds of the individual states.

UCOWF gladly offers its assistance in drafting these changes to existing legislation and regulatory provisions.

Conclusion:
Child Care Assistance has been described by one of our member investigators as "the new pot of gold" in welfare fraud. It must be acknowledged, pursued and prevented. Efforts must be made by both the states and the federal government to insure that uniform and reasonable criteria are established to provide and receive child care assistance, that applications for assistance and vendor status are properly evaluated, that funds are available to ensure thorough investigation of suspected cases of fraud and penalties imposed on intentional violators of the program, and that procedures and vehicles are in place for recovery of child care program overpayments.

Again, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the United Council on Welfare Fraud, I thank you for the opportunity and honor of addressing you on this subject."

[cullen7282]

What's the UCOWF? Can you provide me with a link to that please?

[clocker]

@Skizo...

I saw not one instance from your post where urine testing would have been useful in exposing the fraud.
Nor would mandatory birth control.

[tusks]

What's the UCOWF? Can you provide me with a link to that please?

http://www.ucowf.org/ - United Council on Welfare Fraud

Link to Skizo's article:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=printfriendly&id=680

Scroll down a bit to find it.

[Busyman]

@Skizo...

I saw not one instance from your post where urine testing would have been useful in exposing the fraud.
Nor would mandatory birth control.

I was thinking the exact same thing. However, in your quotes, I didn't see anything in rebuttal.:ermm:

His quote does address fraud though.

[clocker]

His quote does address fraud though.

In those states that did maintain detailed statistics, fraud was discovered in upwards of 69 percent of the investigations conducted with total annual discovered fraud amounts ranging from $10,000 to over $1 million
Halliburton has stolen more of your tax dollars in one month than all the welfare fraud in a year.

Therefore, we would all save money if Halliburton employees took piss tests and were sterilized.

[Busyman™]

In those states that did maintain detailed statistics, fraud was discovered in upwards of 69 percent of the investigations conducted with total annual discovered fraud amounts ranging from $10,000 to over $1 million
Halliburton has stolen more of your tax dollars in one month than all the welfare fraud in a year.

Therefore, we would all save money if Halliburton employees took piss tests and were sterilized.

Agreed.

We shouldn't ignore welfare fraud either.

[cullen7282]

What's the UCOWF? Can you provide me with a link to that please?

http://www.ucowf.org/ - United Council on Welfare Fraud

Link to Skizo's article:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=printfriendly&id=680

Scroll down a bit to find it.

Okay, thanks, what I wanted was a date. That was in 2003. It's probably a state by state thing but I used government childcare in 2005 and it didn't seem so easy to commit fraud.


Unless you were scared for your life, you had to go after your ex for child support or they would cut off food stamps, child care, etc. They even had a child support office right there in DFCS. I had to submit a certified letter from my lawyer proving that he was taking care of that.
I had to give them a copy of my class schedule so they knew when I had class and I couldn't take my child to daycare on other days.

I had to give an itemized report of all money coming into and leaving my household. Then, for proof, had to give them my last three months of bank statements so they could check my list against them.Maybe I'm just not as good at cheating the system as other people, but it just seemed to me to be very hard to lie your way through it with as much as they check on you and as much proof that they need.

[clocker]

I used government childcare in 2005 and it didn't seem so easy to commit fraud.


Would you have submitted to urine testing and mandatory birth control?

[cullen7282]

I used government childcare in 2005 and it didn't seem so easy to commit fraud.


Would you have submitted to urine testing and mandatory birth control?

I was already on birth control and had nothing to fear from urine testing, I suppose I would have if it had been required but I find it an extreme invasion of privacy and rights and do not agree with it. Which is exactly why it will never get passed.

[clocker]

Forgive me if I pry...

Busy seems to be under the impression that welfare recipients get wads of cash which they then turn around and squander on drugs.
My understanding is that most benefits are in the form of credits- i.e., foodstamps, child care, etc.- not easily spent/traded for goods (illicit or no).

What form did your assistance take?

[cullen7282]

Foodstamps were on a card which could only be used to buy food items, it wouldn't even pay for toilet paper. The childcare assistance was run by a government certified daycare, i had no control over their payment. I paid them forty seven dollars a month and the government paid the rest. Welfare, such as TANF, is extremely hard to get. You have to be making almost nothing in order to receive that. I was making $1,000 dollars a month for a family of three and I wasn't eligible. If I remember correctly, I couldn't have been eligible if I wasn't under a few hundred dollars a month. I do believe when you have tanf you pull it off a card at an ATM.

[clocker]

So, no big rocks of crack cocaine for you, eh?

Thanks for sharing the info.

[Busyman™]

So, no big rocks of crack cocaine for you, eh?


:blink: I saw nothing about her being a drug addict.:blink:

You are weird.

[Busyman™]

Foodstamps were on a card which could only be used to buy food items, it wouldn't even pay for toilet paper.

Yeah I've seen that. Around here it's called the Independence Card.

---
I remember one year when I young (I might have been 7), I think my mother lied about her pay so I could get reduced lunch at school. It was 40 cents.

It came up because every year after I paid a dollar. I remember some kids getting free lunch.

[Busyman™]

http://www.ucowf.org/ - United Council on Welfare Fraud

Link to Skizo's article:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=printfriendly&id=680

Scroll down a bit to find it.

Okay, thanks, what I wanted was a date. That was in 2003. It's probably a state by state thing but I used government childcare in 2005 and it didn't seem so easy to commit fraud.


Unless you were scared for your life, you had to go after your ex for child support or they would cut off food stamps, child care, etc. They even had a child support office right there in DFCS. I had to submit a certified letter from my lawyer proving that he was taking care of that.
I had to give them a copy of my class schedule so they knew when I had class and I couldn't take my child to daycare on other days.

I had to give an itemized report of all money coming into and leaving my household. Then, for proof, had to give them my last three months of bank statements so they could check my list against them.Maybe I'm just not as good at cheating the system as other people, but it just seemed to me to be very hard to lie your way through it with as much as they check on you and as much proof that they need.




What state are you in?

It's probably not that you are not good at cheating the system. You are most likely just an honest person or that a combination of your honesty and the checks keep the system honest.

[Busyman™]

Would you have submitted to urine testing and mandatory birth control?

I was already on birth control and had nothing to fear from urine testing, I suppose I would have if it had been required but I find it an extreme invasion of privacy and rights and do not agree with it. Which is exactly why it will never get passed.

Where's the invasion of privacy and rights?

I had to take a urine test to make money at my job, btw.

[clocker]

...the principle of paying someone taxpayer money that smokes it up.




So, no big rocks of crack cocaine for you, eh?


:blink: I saw nothing about her being a drug addict.:blink:

I thought the assumption was that the system was completely overrun with addicts who use welfare money to support their habits- hence, mandatory drug testing.
Cullen is obviously the exception to the rule.

[cullen7282]

Where's the invasion of privacy and rights?

I had to take a urine test to make money at my job, btw.\

The urine test isn't as bad as the mandatory birth control. Come on, why not just sterilize everyone on assistance?:wacko:


What state are you in?

I was in Illinois at that time.


So, no big rocks of crack cocaine for you, eh?

Nope, none for me.:D


I thought the assumption was that the system was completely overrun with addicts who use welfare money to support their habits- hence, mandatory drug testing.
Cullen is obviously the exception to the rule.


Actually, I believe I'm the norm. The others are the exception. You never hear about the normal hardworking people, where's the fun in that. What you do hear about is every little abuse that occurs, so people can rant and rave about something, so that's all you hear so it seems widespread. That's my opinion.

[clocker]

Actually, I believe I'm the norm... where's the fun in that.
Agree completely.
Neither the OP (who cut and run rather quickly) nor Busy has shown that rampant abuse by drug users or "serial moms" exists.
I don't believe that it does.
So, no fun.

[Busyman™]

So, no big rocks of crack cocaine for you, eh?


:blink: I saw nothing about her being a drug addict.:blink:

I thought the assumption was that the system was completely overrun with addicts who use welfare money to support their habits- hence, mandatory drug testing.
Cullen is obviously the exception to the rule.

You thought wrong.

You made that the assumption which is why I thought you quite nutty. Someone assails welfare recipients that abuse the system and you make it into some bullshit war on welfare recipients in general.

Yell loudly but you are way off base.

Nice try.

[Busyman™]

The urine test isn't as bad as the mandatory birth control. Come on, why not just sterilize everyone on assistance?:wacko:


Where's the invasion of privacy and rights in either case?



Actually, I believe I'm the norm. The others are the exception. You never hear about the normal hardworking people, where's the fun in that. What you do hear about is every little abuse that occurs, so people can rant and rave about something, so that's all you hear so it seems widespread. That's my opinion.

I believe you to be the norm as well.

Last time I checked though it was never some rule that abuses should not be talked, ranted and raved about, or discussed just because there are those who don't abuse the system.

To be honest, I hear more stories and see more hard working folks on welfare or that were once on welfare.

Usually in the news you hear about the success stories more than the abuses.

[clocker]

You seem quite worked up about presumed abuse of the welfare system, both drugs and out of control reproduction.

Although I have no doubt that there are some high profile examples of both, have you any data to support the idea that abuse is so widespread that draconian measures like mandatory urine tests and enforced birth control are necessary?

If so, I'd like to see it.



No and not needed. I've seen it firsthand....a lot of it.

I've probably seen more of it than lets say, someone that lives in East Jablip west of Bubblefuck, because I work and live in a major metropolitan area.:idunno:

Unfortunately a mother with a kid can keep churning them out and the state will pay.

This is why i said mothers on welfare should be on the birth control shot if medically able to take it.


Someone assails welfare recipients that abuse the system and you make it into some bullshit war on welfare recipients in general.

Yell loudly but you are way off base.

Nice try.
Apparently you not only fail to comprehend anything I write but even your own words.
FFS Busy, you are the advocate of drug testing and mandatory birth control despite being completely unable or unwilling to provide any evidence whatsoever that either measure would impact welfare abuse at all.
If anyone has declared war on welfare recipients it would be yourself, not me.
If anyone has made baseless assumptions, it would be you.

Reread the thread and try to stay awake this time.

[Busyman™]

No and not needed. I've seen it firsthand....a lot of it.

I've probably seen more of it than lets say, someone that lives in East Jablip west of Bubblefuck, because I work and live in a major metropolitan area.:idunno:

Unfortunately a mother with a kid can keep churning them out and the state will pay.

This is why i said mothers on welfare should be on the birth control shot if medically able to take it.


Someone assails welfare recipients that abuse the system and you make it into some bullshit war on welfare recipients in general.

Yell loudly but you are way off base.

Nice try.
Apparently you not only fail to comprehend anything I write but even your own words.
FFS Busy, you are the advocate of drug testing and mandatory birth control despite being completely unable or unwilling to provide any evidence whatsoever that either measure would impact welfare abuse at all.
If anyone has declared war on welfare recipients it would be yourself, not me.
If anyone has made baseless assumptions, it would be you.

Reread the thread and try to stay awake this time.

You say I've declared war on welfare recipients yet still point to me talking about abusers. Wtf is wrong with you?

You talk about my comprehension yet you have repeatedly failed to recognize what a question is (with question marks, no doubt), put assumptions on me that I haven't made, or simply fail to read properly.

Even above, I never said you declared war on welfare recipients. You made the assumption the system was completely overrun with addicts who use welfare money to support their habits.

The OP didn't even make that assertion. You are either an idiot or a liar.

I also (for the nth time) said that I was speaking from personal experience.

I don't need to reread the thread. I also don't deal in spin or cheerleading when someone is perceived to be on my side.

You need anti-senility pills.

I feel like someone has hijacked clocker's account and replaced him with an emotional nutjob.

[cullen7282]

Where's the invasion of privacy and rights in either case?

Sterilization isn't a new concept. It was done in 32 states between the 1900's until around 1970, California more than other places.

Started with mentally disabled in state run homes and hospitals.

Then came the Mexicans, Latinos, Blacks and Native Americans.

Soon they were sterilizing young girls categorized as immoral, loose, or unfit for motherhood

Most of the sterilizations were either working class or lower middle class.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/95/7/1128

It's called Eugenics:

Eugenics is a social philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) which advocates the improvement of human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human) hereditary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary) traits through various forms of intervention.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#_note-Osborn1937) Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_responsibility), an altruistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism) stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_%28trait%29) people, to save resources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), and lessen human suffering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering).
Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding), while modern ones focus on prenatal testing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_testing) and screening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_screening), genetic counseling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_counseling), birth control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control), in vitro fertilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilization), and genetic engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering). Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immoral) and is based on, or is itself, pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination) and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_sterilization) of persons who are claimed to have genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutionalization) population and, in some cases, outright genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide) of races perceived as inferior or undesirable.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics



I find it draconian and immoral. By the way, isn't that what Hitler was doing with the Aryan Race? It's a scary concept to start allowing the government to decide who can and who can not have children. Where's the system to redress this for someone who left her abusive husband and used welfare for two years to get on her feet? Now she's pulled herself up and off of state assistance but damn, can't have children now.

Who gets to decide who needs it? Rich white men? No thanks, I'll pass.

[clocker]

To be fair Cullen, even Busy wasn't advocating sterilization, just mandatory birth control...presumably the reversible kind- you know, the "shot".

Of course, as Rose pointed out, there may be long term health issues associated with those and there isn't an iota of evidence (outside of Busy's much ballyhooed "personal experience") that welfare mothers are on a reproductive rampage, so the necessity for such strictures is questionable, to say the least.

Just to remove any ambiguity (although I thought I'd been pretty clear from the beginning...)- I do NOT believe that there is a high enough level of welfare abuse by drug addled recipients to justify mandatory urine testing.
Nor do I believe that welfare mothers are squeezing out extra kids who then go on to be welfare recipients- and if there are, certainly not enough to justify mandatory birth control (much less, sterilization).

The US spends so little of the stereotypical working man's tax dollar on welfare and social services that completely eliminating the programs- which would solve the "abuse problem" totally- wouldn't make more than a few pennies difference in his take home pay.

Of course, it's far easier to direct one's outrage at the poor and downtrodden than to look upward at the real master manipulators of the system.
Industries like arms manufacturing and agribusiness have figured out how to suck billions in subsidies from the taxpayer- amounts that would leave the average welfare chiseler weak with envy.

[Busyman™]

Where's the invasion of privacy and rights in either case?

Sterilization isn't a new concept. It was done in 32 states between the 1900's until around 1970, California more than other places.

Started with mentally disabled in state run homes and hospitals.

Then came the Mexicans, Latinos, Blacks and Native Americans.

Soon they were sterilizing young girls categorized as immoral, loose, or unfit for motherhood

Most of the sterilizations were either working class or lower middle class.

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/95/7/1128

It's called Eugenics:

Eugenics is a social philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) which advocates the improvement of human (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human) hereditary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary) traits through various forms of intervention.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#_note-Osborn1937) Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_responsibility), an altruistic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism) stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_%28trait%29) people, to save resources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), and lessen human suffering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering).
Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding), while modern ones focus on prenatal testing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_testing) and screening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_screening), genetic counseling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_counseling), birth control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control), in vitro fertilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilization), and genetic engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering). Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immoral) and is based on, or is itself, pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination) and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_sterilization) of persons who are claimed to have genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutionalization) population and, in some cases, outright genocide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide) of races perceived as inferior or undesirable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

I find it draconian and immoral. By the way, isn't that what Hitler was doing with the Aryan Race? It's a scary concept to start allowing the government to decide who can and who can not have children. Where's the system to redress this for someone who left her abusive husband and used welfare for two years to get on her feet? Now she's pulled herself up and off of state assistance but damn, can't have children now.

Who gets to decide who needs it? Rich white men? No thanks, I'll pass.

Again, what invasion of privacy and rights are there?

If you stop taking birth control, later on you can have children.
When you went for assistance before were you sterilized or on birth control?

This might be a case over-googling on your part.

All I proposed is a measure to reduce the likelihood of women having kids while on assistance.

There's the cost of the shot and then there's the cost of healthcare for mom and baby plus daycare plus lengthening of assistance for which taxpayers foot the bill.

I've known mom's that were not abusing the system that had children while welfare. It slowed them down from getting on their feet although they ended up with a bundle of joy.

Children are a full time responsibility. The purpose of government assistance is to help one get on their feet and back into the workforce. Having children while on assistance is counter-productive to doing that.

Yelling loudly about reproductive rights while asking the government to pay for your reproduction while already getting money and assistance from the government (taxpayers) is just mad talk.

[clocker]

All I proposed is a measure to reduce the likelihood of women having kids while on assistance.


While failing to prove that it actually even happens.

[Busyman™]

All I proposed is a measure to reduce the likelihood of women having kids while on assistance.


While failing to prove that it actually even happens.
:glag:

Rooiighhht.

[clocker]

I'll take that to mean that you can't.

Kind of odd, don't you think?
If welfare mothers were spawning so actively you'd think there would be data showing it.

Instead one finds this...

Welfare Spending in Pennsylvania

For more than a year, advocates for reduced state spending and lower taxes have argued that welfare spending in the Commonwealth has grown disproportionately. In press releases, letters to the editor, campaign platforms and literature, candidates and officials have condemned increased caseloads and the overall level of welfare spending.

The reality of welfare and welfare spending in Pennsylvania is a remarkably different one from that the critics have portrayed. Welfare spending is a small portion of Pennsylvania’s overall state budget. In fact, welfare spending is a small portion of the Department of Public Welfare budget. Welfare caseloads have declined by more than 50% over the first 10 years of welfare reform, and despite an uptick during the economic recession—exactly what is to be expected when the economy fails—caseloads are once again on the decline. In August only 71,000 adults, less than 1% of adults statewide, received cash assistance benefits.

While caseloads have declined, poverty has not.

After making great gains during the 1990’s child poverty in Pennsylvania, and across the county, began to increase in 2000 and has yet to decline. Adult poverty has increased as well, and the number of adults with employer paid health insurance has declined. Wages for all but the highest income workers have not kept pace with inflation. Welfare spending is not the problem; access to jobs with family sustaining wages—wages that grow over time— and offer health care benefits is Pennsylvania’s challenge for the coming years.

Consider the facts. . . .
Welfare spending is a small percentage of state total state general fund spending

* 96% of state spending is for non-welfare programs. Welfare costs, including administration, employment and training, child care and other related costs are only 4% of state spending.
* Cash grants, which include direct payment to TANF recipients, are less than 2% of state spending.
* Welfare grants in the most populous counties are just 24% of the poverty line ($403 for a family of three).

Welfare programs are a small part of Department of Public Welfare spending

* Almost 90% of the DPW budget is spent for programs other than welfare.
* Cash grants to families make up only 5% of the DPW general fund budget. Total welfare spending, including administration, grants to the blind, employment and training, child care and other expenditures comprise less than 11% of DPW general fund spending.

Welfare spending has declined in Pennsylvania

* Spending on cash grants has declined from $675 million in 94-95 to $435 million in 05-06, a 36% reduction in nominal dollars.
* Income maintenance programs have declined from 21% of the DPW budget in 94-95 to 11% in 05-06.
* Cash grants declined from 12% of DPW spending to 4.1% over the 11 year period.
* Spending for all income maintenance has declined slightly from $1.1 billion to just over $1 billion in 2005-06.

Most welfare department spending is for health care services for the elderly, disabled and families with children

* In 2005-06, 1.8 million people, almost 15% of the state’s population, received health care through MA alone (another 3% through CHIP and Adult Basic)
* Almost 51% of MA recipients, 929,000 in total, are children, a proportion that grown since 2000.
* MA spending has increased from 48% to 55% of DPW general fund spending.
* Pennsylvania spends considerable more on long-term care for the elderly than on welfare: In 2005-06 the state spent almost twice as much on long-term care as it did on welfare.

Welfare caseloads have declined considerably

* TANF caseload declined by 53% from 1996 to 2006 from
* Pennsylvania TANF caseloads mirror national picture. Nationwide TANF caseloads have declined by more than 50%.
* PA was one of 25 states to see caseloads increase between 2001 and 2003, an increase of just 3.5% during the worst economic downturn in 50 years.

Most TANF recipients are children

* Only 30% of Pennsylvania’s TANF recipients are adults. 70% of all recipients are children.
* 25,000 of 96,000 TANF cases are child only cases; no adult receives a TANF benefit in that household.
* 170,000 children received TANF benefits in August of this year, a small fraction of the 460,000 Pennsylvania children live in poverty..

Welfare is declining but poverty and insecurity are on the rise

* The poverty rate in Pennsylvania increased from 8.6 to 11.2 percent between 2000 and 2005.
* Over the same period the child poverty rate climbed from 11.6 to 16.9 percent.
* The number of Pennsylvanians with employer-provided health insurance declined by 5.1 percent between 1999-2000 and 2004-2005.
* Median wages in 2005, were 2 percent below their level in 2001, adjusted for inflation.

August 2006 marked the 10th anniversary of the overhaul in the welfare system that created the TANF. Welfare reform changed the program in fundamental ways; making cash assistance a time limited benefit, encouraging rapid attachment to the workforce at the expenses of longer term education and skills building, and imposing sanctions on individuals and states that did not meet the new requirements.

Welfare reform did result in reduced caseloads and reduced cash assistance expenditures. The promise of reduced poverty, improved economic security, and family self-sufficiency has yet to be achieved.
Source. (http://www.pennbpc.org/incomeandpoverty/index.php)
So, instead of seeing growth in welfare caseload and spending what we see is reduction in both areas.

Now, what's the justification for mandatory birth control again?

And, just in case you fail to grasp the irony, Busy...you want to ADD cost (the "shots" aren't free after all) to a program that's been shrinking for the past 10 years.

Is ANY of this sinking in?

[Busyman™]

I'll take that to mean that you can't.

Kind of odd, don't you think?
If welfare mothers were spawning so actively you'd think there would be data showing it.

Instead one finds this...

Welfare Spending in Pennsylvania

For more than a year, advocates for reduced state spending and lower taxes have argued that welfare spending in the Commonwealth has grown disproportionately. In press releases, letters to the editor, campaign platforms and literature, candidates and officials have condemned increased caseloads and the overall level of welfare spending.

The reality of welfare and welfare spending in Pennsylvania is a remarkably different one from that the critics have portrayed. Welfare spending is a small portion of Pennsylvania’s overall state budget. In fact, welfare spending is a small portion of the Department of Public Welfare budget. Welfare caseloads have declined by more than 50% over the first 10 years of welfare reform, and despite an uptick during the economic recession—exactly what is to be expected when the economy fails—caseloads are once again on the decline. In August only 71,000 adults, less than 1% of adults statewide, received cash assistance benefits.

While caseloads have declined, poverty has not.

After making great gains during the 1990’s child poverty in Pennsylvania, and across the county, began to increase in 2000 and has yet to decline. Adult poverty has increased as well, and the number of adults with employer paid health insurance has declined. Wages for all but the highest income workers have not kept pace with inflation. Welfare spending is not the problem; access to jobs with family sustaining wages—wages that grow over time— and offer health care benefits is Pennsylvania’s challenge for the coming years.

Consider the facts. . . .
Welfare spending is a small percentage of state total state general fund spending

* 96% of state spending is for non-welfare programs. Welfare costs, including administration, employment and training, child care and other related costs are only 4% of state spending.
* Cash grants, which include direct payment to TANF recipients, are less than 2% of state spending.
* Welfare grants in the most populous counties are just 24% of the poverty line ($403 for a family of three).

Welfare programs are a small part of Department of Public Welfare spending

* Almost 90% of the DPW budget is spent for programs other than welfare.
* Cash grants to families make up only 5% of the DPW general fund budget. Total welfare spending, including administration, grants to the blind, employment and training, child care and other expenditures comprise less than 11% of DPW general fund spending.

Welfare spending has declined in Pennsylvania

* Spending on cash grants has declined from $675 million in 94-95 to $435 million in 05-06, a 36% reduction in nominal dollars.
* Income maintenance programs have declined from 21% of the DPW budget in 94-95 to 11% in 05-06.
* Cash grants declined from 12% of DPW spending to 4.1% over the 11 year period.
* Spending for all income maintenance has declined slightly from $1.1 billion to just over $1 billion in 2005-06.

Most welfare department spending is for health care services for the elderly, disabled and families with children

* In 2005-06, 1.8 million people, almost 15% of the state’s population, received health care through MA alone (another 3% through CHIP and Adult Basic)
* Almost 51% of MA recipients, 929,000 in total, are children, a proportion that grown since 2000.
* MA spending has increased from 48% to 55% of DPW general fund spending.
* Pennsylvania spends considerable more on long-term care for the elderly than on welfare: In 2005-06 the state spent almost twice as much on long-term care as it did on welfare.

Welfare caseloads have declined considerably

* TANF caseload declined by 53% from 1996 to 2006 from
* Pennsylvania TANF caseloads mirror national picture. Nationwide TANF caseloads have declined by more than 50%.
* PA was one of 25 states to see caseloads increase between 2001 and 2003, an increase of just 3.5% during the worst economic downturn in 50 years.

Most TANF recipients are children

* Only 30% of Pennsylvania’s TANF recipients are adults. 70% of all recipients are children.
* 25,000 of 96,000 TANF cases are child only cases; no adult receives a TANF benefit in that household.
* 170,000 children received TANF benefits in August of this year, a small fraction of the 460,000 Pennsylvania children live in poverty..

Welfare is declining but poverty and insecurity are on the rise

* The poverty rate in Pennsylvania increased from 8.6 to 11.2 percent between 2000 and 2005.
* Over the same period the child poverty rate climbed from 11.6 to 16.9 percent.
* The number of Pennsylvanians with employer-provided health insurance declined by 5.1 percent between 1999-2000 and 2004-2005.
* Median wages in 2005, were 2 percent below their level in 2001, adjusted for inflation.

August 2006 marked the 10th anniversary of the overhaul in the welfare system that created the TANF. Welfare reform changed the program in fundamental ways; making cash assistance a time limited benefit, encouraging rapid attachment to the workforce at the expenses of longer term education and skills building, and imposing sanctions on individuals and states that did not meet the new requirements.

Welfare reform did result in reduced caseloads and reduced cash assistance expenditures. The promise of reduced poverty, improved economic security, and family self-sufficiency has yet to be achieved.
Source. (http://www.pennbpc.org/incomeandpoverty/index.php)
So, instead of seeing growth in welfare caseload and spending what we see is reduction in both areas.

Now, what's the justification for mandatory birth control again?

And, just in case you fail to grasp the irony, Busy...you want to ADD cost (the "shots" aren't free after all) to a program that's been shrinking for the past 10 years.

Is ANY of this sinking in?

I doubt the shot costs more than

the doctor bill for child birth
daycare
healthcare for a newborn
lengthening of welfare pay for the mother

:smilie4:

[cullen7282]

Depo Provera causes bone loss, increase cervical cancer nine-fold, and increases risk of chlamydia and gonorrhea. Not to mention a myriad of other less threatening side effects. Is it still cheaper if medicaid has to pay the bills for treating this?
Do you actually believe women should be forced to take a medication that could harm them?